Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

66

Swift v. Meyers, 13 Sawy. 592, 37 Fed. 43, holding decree foreclosing lien void where return did not show compliance with statute; Hatch v. Ferguson, 57 Fed. 970, holding judgment against minor void if parent not served also; Foster v. Givens, 67 Fed. 691, 692, 31 U. S. App. 626, holding recital of service on record is sufficient on collateral attack; Gregory v. Bartlett, 55 Ark. 34, 36, 17 S. W. 345, holding failure to enter warning order in record renders judgment in tax suit void; O'Rear v. Lazarus, 8 Colo. 609, 9 Pac. 621, and Park v. Higbee, 6 Utah, 416, 24 Pac. 525, holding order failing to direct mailing of copy, insufficient; Brenner v. Quick, 88 Ind. 551, and Palmer v. McMaster, 8 Mont. 192, 194, 195, 19 Pac. 587, 588, holding service ineffectual where affidavit failed to set forth cause of action; Vizzard v. Taylor, 97 Ind. 94, holding void, notice of assessment not containing owner's name; Hardester v. Sharretts, 84 Md. 150, 34 Atl. 1122, holding notice to unknown heirs ineffectual if ancestor misnamed; Gould v. Jacobson, 58 Mich. 293, 25 N. W. 197, holding mere recital of due publication in return cannot cure want of it; Godfrey v. Valentine, 39 Minn. 337, 12 Am. St. Rep. 658, 40 N. W. 164, holding publication once a week" not shown by proof of publication "for six weeks; " Fore v. Hoke, 48 Mo. App. 260, holding order in condemnation proceedings insufficient whereamount of land not specified; Coffin v. Bell, 22 Nev. 183, 58 Am. St. Rep. 739, 37 Pac. 241, holding publication without order of court is ineffective; Odell v. Campbell, 9 Or. 304, holding failure to aver date of order is fatal; Colburn v. Barrett, 21 Or. 30, 26 Pac. 1009, holding affidavit defective in not showing property in State; Stewart v. Anderson, 70 Tex. 593, 8 S. W. 297, holding burden is on party relying on judgment to show jurisdiction; Mosby v. Gisborn, 17 Utah, 280, 54 Pac. 127, holding order appointing guardian void where notice not given to interested parties; Abraham v. Cheeney, 1 Wash. Ter. 504, holding defendant must be duly cited to appear; Beaupre v. Brigham, 79 Wis. 441, 48 N. W. 597, holding notice must be mailed as directed by statute. Cited approvingly in discussion obiter in Noble v. Union River Logging R. R., 147 U. S. 173, 37 L. 126, 13 S. Ct. 273, and Woolridge v. McKenna, 8 Fed. 656, Caldwell v. Armour, 1 Pennewill (Del.), 551, 43 Atl. 519, Mastin v. Gray, 19 Kan. 463, 27 Am. Rep. 153, and dissenting opinion in Leonard v. Sparks, 63 Mo. App. 607.

Distinguished in Applegate v. Lexington, etc., Mining Co., 117 U. S. 271, 29 L. 897, 6 S. Ct. 749, and criticised in Amy v. Amy, 12 Utah, 319, 321, 326, 42 Pac. 1124, both holding recital of publication raises presumption that it was regular.

Courts.- Facts necessary to exercise of special jurisdiction must appear upon record, p. 371.

Cited and followed in State v. Simpson, 91 Me. 81, 39 Atl. 287, holding records of court of limited jurisdiction are not prima facie evidence of former conviction. See also note, 13 Am. Dec. 180.

Judgment without jurisdiction is unavailing for any purpose, p. 373.

Cited and applied in Reinach v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 58 Fed. 43, holding decree of foreclosure void; Gray v. Larrimore, 4 Sawy. 653, F. C. 5,721, holding decree of dissolution void as against non-resident partner; Jewett v. Iowa Land Co., 64 Minn. 537, 58 Am. St. Rep. 560, 67 N. W. 641, holding void judgment cannot be validated by summoning defendant to show cause why it should not be enforced; Troyer v. Wood, 96 Mo. 480, 9 Am. St. Rep. 368, 10 S. W. 43, holding void, judgment recovered on process directed to person by wrong name; In re Christiansen, 17 Utah, 423, 70 Am. St. Rep. 801, 53 Pac. 1006, 41 L. R. A. 508, holding divorce decree void where court had no jurisdiction; Dorr v. Rohr, 82 Va. 363, 3 Am. St. Rep. 109, holding order of publication executed in Virginia during war inoperative against resident of New York; Staunton Perpetual, etc., Co. ▼. Haden, 92 Va. 207, 23 S. E. 287, holding no act of ratification can validate judgment not based on service. Approved obiter in In re McKibben, 12 Nat. Bank. Reg. 101, 16 Fed. Cas. 211. And see note, 5 Am. St. Rep. 454.

Attorney and client.- Attorney is presumed to know of defects in proceedings taken under his direction, p. 373.

Cited in discussion in note in 28 Am. Dec. 372.

Appeal and error.- Plaintiff or his attorney purchasing property under judgment of California court is bound to restore it to defendant upon reversal of judgment, p. 374.

A similar rule has been applied in citing cases from other States, as follows: Robinson v. Alabama, etc., Mfg. Co., 67 Fed. 193, Mc Donald v. Mobile Life Ins. Co., 65 Ala. 362, and Wickes v. Odom, 74 Tex. 212, 15 Am. St. Rep. 831, 12 S. W. 36, applying rule to property purchased at foreclosure; Johnson v. Dooly, 72 Ga. 300, Mullin v. Atherton, 61 N. H. 22, Singly v. Warren, 18 Wash. 441, 63 Am. St. Rep. 901, 51 Pac. 1068, and Dunfee v. Childs, 45 W. Va. 165, 30 S. E. 106, to property purchased at execution; Marks V. Cowles, 61 Ala. 303, holding plaintiff's assignee obtains no rights as bona fide purchaser. Approved, arguendo, in Blythe v. Hinckley, 84 Fed. 254. And see note, 76 Am. Dec. 467.

Limited in Martin v. Victor M. & M. Co., 19 Nev. 198, 9 Pac. 336, holding mere modification of judgment will not warrant decree of restitution.

Judicial sales.- Bona fide purchaser of property at judicial sale is not bound to restore property upon reversal of judgment, p. 875. Cited and followed in Thompson v. Reasoner, 122 Ind. 458, 461, 24 N. E. 225, 226, 7 L. R. A. 497, 498, holding rights of third parties acquired on faith of decree respecting right of drainage, cannot be affected by reversal. See also notes in 54 Am. Dec. 455, and 89 Am. Dec. 191.

[ocr errors]

Process.- Judgment obtained without service of process on defendant is void, pp. 368, 369.

Cited and followed in McClatchy v. Superior Court, 119 Cal. 421, 51 Pac. 699, 39 L. R. A. 694, holding order committing for contempt without hearing, void. Approved obiter in Hovey v. Elliot, 167 U. S. 418, 42 L. 221, 17 S. Ct. 844.

Miscellaneous. Cited also in McKay v. Ross, 40 Mich. 551, but application not apparent.

18 Wall. 375-391, 21 L. 868, TIFFANY v. BOATMAN'S INSTITUTION.

Banks and banking.— Provision in bank charter forbidding it to take interest in excess of certain rate, avoids contracts made in violation thereof, p. 384.

Cited and followed in Kilbreth v. Bates, 38 Ohio St. 196, a similar case; Penn v. Bornman, 102 Ill. 535, holding loan to directors in contravention of charter, void. Cited, arguendo, in Crocker v. National Bank, 4 Dill. 361, F. C. 3,397. Criticised in Lewis v. Clarendon, 5 Dill. 339, F. C. 8,320, holding contract of corporation in excess of legal rate is void only as to excess.

Contract to do an act forbidden by law is void, p. 385.

Usury. Where usurious contract is executed equity will not as sist debtor to recover back both principal and interest, p. 385.

Usury. If contract be executory equity will relieve borrower only on condition that he pay lender the principal with legal interest, p. 385.

Cited and relied upon in In re Hoole, 3 Fed. 501, holding payments in excess of legal rate should be applied to liquidation of principal; Pickett v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 32 Ark. 364, 370, and Anthony v. Lawson, 34 Ark. 630, holding person seeking relief from judgment on ground of usury must pay what is legally due from him; dissenting opinion in Missouri, etc., Trust Co. v. Krumseig, 77 Fed. 43, 40 U. S. App. 620, majority applying contrary rule in force in Minnesota. Cited in discussion obiter in Yardley v. New York Guaranty, etc., Co., 1 Flipp. 558, F. C. 18,125, and Manhattan Trust Co. V. Sioux City, etc., R. Co., 65 Fed. 568. And see note, 55 Am. Dec. 899.

Distinguished in Missouri, etc., Trust Co. v. Krumseig, 172 U. 8. 857, 19 S. Ct. 182, following contrary rule in force in Minnesota.

Usury. If usurious contract be executed, equity will not assist borrower to recover more than the excess he has paid above legal interest, p. 385.

Cited and principle applied in Wright v. First Nat. Bank, 8 Biss. 245, F. C. 18,078, asserting assignee's right to recover usurious interest.

Union Teleg. Co., 83 Ala. 505, 3 Am. St. Rep. 761, 3 So. 451, deny. ing jurisdiction of equity to enforce specific performance against foreign corporation; Rucker v. Morgan, Ala., 25 So. 246, affirming decree dismissing bill against non-resident; Belcher v. Chambers, 53 Cal. 643, holding void, judgment on money demand based on constructive service; De La Montanya v. De La Montanya, 112 Cal. 113, 53 Am. St. Rep. 172, 44 Pac. 348, 32 L. R. A. 86, holding decree for alimony cannot be based on constructive service on nonresident; Caldwell v. Armour, 1 Pennewill (Del.), 551, 43 Atl. 519, holding service on agent of non-resident corporation insufficient; State v. Jacksonville, etc., R. R., 15 Fla. 285, holding, under Florida laws, receiver cannot be appointed by judge of one circuit to take charge of property in another; Harris v. Pullman, 84 Ill. 24, 25 Am. Rep. 418, holding decree based on constructive service cannot bind property in other State; Wilson v. St. Louis, etc., Ry., 108 Mo. 598, 32 Am. St. Rep. 629, 18 S. W. 293, holding notice to fix personal liability of stockholder cannot be served outside of State; Tillinghast v. Boston Co., 39 S. C. 494, 18 S. E. 124, 22 L. R. A. 53, holding court cannot require jurisdiction in personal action against foreign corporation by publication. Approved obiter in Phillips v. Benson, 82 Ala. 503, 2 So. 94. And see notes in 76 Am. Dec. 666, and 94 Am. Dec. 768.

Distinguished in dissenting opinion in Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. 8. 743, 24 L. 576, majority holding execution will not issue on judgment in personam against non-resident; dissenting opinion in State v. Jacksonville, etc., R. R., 15 Fla. 287 (see majority opinion, supra). Process. Statutes authorizing constructive service on absentees by publication, must be strictly observed to give court jurisdiction, p. 369.

Numerous citing cases follow this ruling of Galpin v. Page, and show it to be a leading authority upon this point: Boyd v. Roane, 49 Ark. 414, 5 S. W. 708, and Campbell v. Drais, 125 Cal. 258, 57 Pac. 995, in both of which, facts were similar to those involved in principal case; Earle v. McVeigh, 91 U. S. 508, 23 L. 400, holding notice posted on door of house vacated seven months previously is not posted at usual place of abode; Settlemier v. Sullivan, 97 U. S. 449, 24 L. 1111, holding record recitals not conclusive of due service; Guaranty Trust Co. v. Green Cove R. R., 139 U. S. 148, 35 L. 120, 11 S. Ct. 516, holding publication for four weeks does not satisfy statutory requirement of “one month;" Dick v. Foraker, 155 U. S. 413, 39 L. 205, 15 S. Ct. 128, and Martin v. Barbour, 34 Fed. 708, holding tax sale void where notice not given for length of time prescribed; Cissell v. Pulaski Co., 3 McCrary, 450, 10 Fed. 894, and Gibney v. Crawford, 51 Ark. 40, 9 S. W. 311, holding failure to post notice calling in county warrants, renders proceedings void; In re Pensacola Lumber Co., 8 Ben. 172, F. C. 10,959, holding order dissolving corporation without previous order to show cause is void;

66

Swift v. Meyers, 13 Sawy. 592, 37 Fed. 43, holding decree foreclosing lien void where return did not show compliance with statute; Hatch v. Ferguson, 57 Fed. 970, holding judgment against minor void if parent not served also; Foster v. Givens, 67 Fed. 691, 692, 31 U. S. App. 626, holding recital of service on record is sufficient on collateral attack; Gregory v. Bartlett, 55 Ark. 34, 36, 17 S. W. 345, holding failure to enter warning order in record renders judgment in tax suit void; O'Rear v. Lazarus, 8 Colo. 609, 9 Pac. 621, and Park v. Higbee, 6 Utah, 416, 24 Pac. 525, holding order failing to direct mailing of copy, insufficient; Brenner v. Quick, 88 Ind. 551, and Palmer v. McMaster, 8 Mont. 192, 194, 195, 19 Pac. 587, 588, holding service ineffectual where affidavit failed to set forth cause of action; Vizzard v. Taylor, 97 Ind. 94, holding void, notice of assessment not containing owner's name; Hardester v. Sharretts, 84 Md. 150, 34 Atl. 1122, holding notice to unknown heirs ineffectual if ancestor misnamed; Gould v. Jacobson, 58 Mich. 293, 25 N. W. 197, holding mere recital of due publication in return cannot cure want of it; Godfrey v. Valentine, 39 Minn. 337, 12 Am. St. Rep. 658, 40 N. W. 164, holding publication once a week" not shown by proof of publication "for six weeks; " Fore v. Hoke, 48 Mo. App. 260, holding order in condemnation proceedings insufficient whereamount of land not specified; Coffin v. Bell, 22 Nev. 183, 58 Am. St. Rep. 739, 37 Pac. 241, holding publication without order of court is ineffective; Odell v. Campbell, 9 Or. 304, holding failure to aver date of order is fatal; Colburn v. Barrett, 21 Or. 30, 26 Pac. 1009, holding affidavit defective in not showing property in State; Stewart v. Anderson, 70 Tex. 593, 8 S. W. 297, holding burden is on party relying on judgment to show jurisdiction; Mosby v. Gisborn, 17 Utah, 280, 54 Pac. 127, holding order appointing guardian void where notice not given to interested parties; Abraham v. Cheeney, 1 Wash. Ter. 504, holding defendant must be duly cited to appear; Beaupre v. Brigham, 79 Wis. 441, 48 N. W. 597, holding notice must be mailed as directed by statute. Cited approvingly in discussion obiter in Noble v. Union River Logging R. R., 147 U. S. 173, 37 L. 126, 13 S. Ct. 273, and Woolridge v. McKenna, 8 Fed. 656, Caldwell v. Armour, 1 Pennewill (Del.), 551, 43 Atl. 519, Mastin v. Gray, 19 Kan. 463, 27 Am. Rep. 153, and dissenting opinion in Leonard v. Sparks, 63 Mo. App. 607.

Distinguished in Applegate v. Lexington, etc., Mining Co., 117 U. S. 271, 29 L. 897, 6 S. Ct. 749, and criticised in Amy v. Amy, 12 Utah, 319, 321, 326, 42 Pac. 1124, both holding recital of publication raises presumption that it was regular.

Courts.- Facts necessary to exercise of special jurisdiction must appear upon record, p. 371.

Cited and followed in State v. Simpson, 91 Me. 81, 39 Atl. 287, holding records of court of limited jurisdiction are not prima facie evidence of former conviction. See also note, 13 Am. Dec. 180.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »